Clowns have entertained and intrigued people for generations. With their colourful costumes, exaggerated makeup, and silly antics, they are meant to bring smiles to faces. However, for some, clowns evoke an entirely different emotion – fear. The perennial debate continues: are clowns funny or scary?
The Funny Side of Clowns
Clowns are masters of physical comedy, eliciting laughter through their exaggerated movements and hilarious pranks. They bring joy to children of all ages at birthday parties, circuses, and comedy shows. Their ability to create a lighthearted and carefree atmosphere is second to none.
The Darker Side
While some find clowns endearing, others have a deep phobia known as “coulrophobia.” These individuals experience an overwhelming sense of fear and discomfort in the presence of clowns. This fear may have been fuelled by horror movies, urban legends, or even childhood memories. The unsettling combination of exaggerated features, hidden identities, and unpredictable behaviour can be a recipe for nightmares.
Finding a Middle Ground
The perception of clowns largely varies from person to person. It is crucial to respect individual perspectives on the matter. In recent years, we have witnessed a shift towards embracing all types of clowning, from the traditional funny clown to the artistic and avant-garde. Accepting the differences and appreciating the artistic expressions within the clown community helps bridge the gap between funny and scary.
In the end, whether clowns are funny or scary is going to be subjective. They have undoubtedly brought joy to countless people, while also evoking fear in some. The world of clowns is a fascinating one, blending laughter, creativity, and yes, even a touch of mystery. Whether these mysterious and unusual creative expressions may bring out different reactions in some of us, I think perhaps the best way to look at it is this….
Clowns are people under the makeup and silly movements. Whether you find them funny or scary, there’s a person under all that who’s goal is to make you feel (whichever option above it is for you). So, let’s remember the person underneath and perhaps we can look past the scary or appreciate the funny and enjoy the ride.
In the vast universe of Star Trek, two legendary captains have captured the hearts and minds of fans around the world – Captain James T. Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Their distinct leadership styles, ideologies, and charismatic personalities have sparked endless debates among Trekkies. Today, we venture into this cosmic clash of captains to explore the charms and virtues of each commander.
The Charismatic Maverick: Captain James T. Kirk
When we think of Captain Kirk, we envision a bold and risk-taking leader. Kirk’s fearlessness in the face of danger and his unwavering confidence have become emblematic of his character. He possesses an undying sense of adventure, exploring the farthest reaches of the galaxy with both charm and audacity.
The Sensible Diplomat: Captain Jean-Luc Picard
On the other side of the spectrum is Captain Picard, the epitome of intellect, diplomacy, and tact. Picard leads his crew with a calm demeanor and a wise, measured approach. A man of immense integrity, his commitment to upholding the principles of the Federation and respecting different cultures sets him apart as a born diplomat.
The Battle of Ideologies
While Kirk is often seen as more impulsive and quick to act, Picard is known for his thoughtful consideration and reliance on reason. Kirk’s emphasis on instinct and personal connections sometimes conflicts with Picard’s commitment to diplomacy and adherence to the Prime Directive. Yet, both captains have proven time and again that their methods achieve success in their own unique ways.
In the ultimate showdown between Captain Kirk and Captain Picard, the verdict remains subjective. The choice between these two remarkable leaders is a matter of personal preference, and fans will continue to debate their merits for generations to come. Regardless of allegiance, we can all agree that both captains have left an indelible mark on the universe of Star Trek and have inspired countless fans to boldly go where no one has gone before.
Alright, this has been going on for a while now… just how many people named “Chris” does Marvel want to hire? Let’s get some more so we can keep going on this train! In the meantime, let’s finally face the decision to see WHO is the BEST Marvel Chris…. Spoilers, it isn’t me (even though wouldn’t that be cool!)
Everyone is going to have a different view, and different reasons as to why they put their list the way they do. The reasons I have for who made it where in my list include the Character they play, how much I enjoyed their performance of said character, and the actor in general… so yeah, let’s do this! Winner is first, and they just keep going down the list – I should also mention that I like ALL of these actors, so nobody is a loser… they just didn’t come first. Okay, enough stalling – let’s go!
Chris Evans– The Human Torch
Captain America – the beacon for good old fashioned values… and a kick ass (language!) hero. I love Cap, he is one of my favourite heroes that Marvel did over the past 10+ years, along with Iron Man. Torch did a great job at being a nice guy who just happened to have strength to kick Americas…. butt. I could watch him all day, and he’ll always be on my left – sort of. If you count my DVD’s being on the left hand side of the TV.
Chris Pratt– Jurassic Park Dude
Star-Lord is an interesting one. He loves the 80s and Kevin Bacon because it’s pretty much the last memory of Earth that he has. That’s all good in my book, because not much else that has come out since is any good. But seriously, Jurassic is hilarious and plays the part well. He certainly is good at distracting those turd blossoms.
Chris Pine– King Of Genovia
Okay, I know, I know that TECHNICALLY Steve Trevor is not in the Marvel universe.. he’s DC with Wonder Woman. BUT, I think he deserves to be on this list… and not just because it was another Chris to add to the pile (though that was a consideration, I will happily admit). The other thing that sets apart his WW character is that he’s not the hero… he’s basically the damsel in distress, but we’re rolling with it anyway. I love Genovia, so he made the list and I won’t apologise! Besides, Steve Trevor can save today, so there you go.
Chris Hemsworth– Nerdy Guy? (Is that what this character was supposed to be..?)
Thor ended up last on the list for a couple of reasons, but first let’s address the elephant in the room. I, an Australian, put the only Aussie last on my list. Yes. Yes I did. Anyway, even though I LOVED the third Thor film, the other two lean a little close into the whole little g god thing… and as a Christian, I don’t really dig it. So, even though the 3rd film WAS objectively funny, and Nerdy Guy is pretty good, he did end up last. I suppose the only thing for him to do is file an appeal, or he could always play “get help”.
Classic debate, so where do you rank the characters I mentioned (because let’s be real, ranking actual people isn’t particularly nice… so it’s all about the characters.. yup, that covers me). Do you agree, or not? Pop your order in the comments and tell me why!
I suppose I should share this first and foremost… I went to a private school. I know what you’re thinking! My school was either Gossip Girl or Summer Heights High… well it wasn’t either. It was just school, but with a high focus on achieving greatness.
So, with that out of the way, as I was writing my recent post where I shared about the Gallagher Girls book series (check out that post >>here if you want to read more about teenage spies in training), I noticed the covers I was finding for each book had a school uniform. Not an interesting observation in general, but when I thought more about it, I recalled the debate that occurred every time in school when they would have free dress days.
It cost a cold coin donation to wear your own clothes instead of the uniform, but it led to an occasional disagreement on what was appropriate to wear to school, and what wasn’t. There was always a conversation about transitioning out the uniform and becoming like the shows we saw on television where kids didn’t have to wear a uniform! They got to come to school in whatever they liked, and we thought that sounded great… So why were the schools making these silly rules and restrictions in the first place? Well, let’s explore the debate on whether or not schools should have uniforms!
YES to Uniforms
One of the first reasons you tend to hear in favour of wearing uniforms, is that it brings unity. Everyone who sees kids wearing the same uniform, in the same manner knows exactly where they belong. What place they go to each day, and what school they represent. It unifies kids of all backgrounds, all year levels and all social groups into one bigger group – School A or School Z. Instead of a child who can’t afford the latest shoes or jacket, they can all blend together as one.
Another of the reasons, are concerning inappropriate clothing worn to school. This was a debate often held at my school, where even a shirt with WORDS of any kind on it, was deemed unacceptable. Images of anything (from a Disney princess, to a Simpson character) was not okay, and you had to change, go home or wear your shirt inside out if they saw you. Even though that sounds extreme, the idea was to stop offensive language and imaging to enter the school grounds. So I did understand – but a little Frozen wouldn’t be that big of a deal if you ask me!
The final one that I tended to hear a lot, was that standards of presentation are going to be different. Some people don’t care if their hair is long and unkempt, or if they have seventeen piercings all over their face as a twelve year old. When you’re forced to have you hair out of your face, or to wearing little or no makeup (saving the embarrassing “cake face” scenario) you learn how to look after yourself and present yourself professionally – an important tool when you start working.
NO to Uniforms
This was the side almost always held by students in school. Those of us who hated having to wear a tie, and have skirts at certain lengths every day. The moment I was out of school, I was glad to never be forced to wear a skirt unless I wanted to ever again! I hate skirts. So why is it that kids think wearing their own clothes are better?
A main reason, was similar to my complaint above – being more comfortable. When you’re sitting at desks all day, walking to classes and running around an oval at lunch, you want to be comfortable. To have movement to do what you gotta do, and then pick something else for the day after – coordinating with your activities on that day.
Another reason for the No Uniform side, is self expression. There is so much that kids and teenagers don’t have control over. How they dress, is something they can somewhat control. When parents are the ones paying for the clothes, sometimes it’s tricky but for the most part you can organise your wardrobe to make a statement about yourself. Maybe one day you’re feeling down and don’t want people to speak to you – you can wear a tracksuit to symbolise you’re giving up on life that day, or all black to scare them away. Maybe you’re feeling flirty and want to wear a skirt after all (I will never understand you people!) but the day after, you want to have the flexibility that comes with shorts…
Especially when you can only wear a dress/skirt or your PE clothes (but only on PE days, or that’s a no-no) it leaves very little room for comfort, self expression and actually connecting with other students when you find out that someone else likes to dress and express the way that you do.
Well, whatever you think about uniforms in schools, the reality is that it’s still very much alive. I suppose home schooling is on the rise, and I think we can all agree that making your kid wear a uniform to the kitchen table would be weird….
Are you For or Against wearing a uniform in schools? Maybe you just don’t care… pop a comment down below and let us know your POV!
Mandatory = required by law, a compulsory activity. In other words, you have to or else…
I live in Australia, and here voting is something you HAVE to do according to the law. If you don’t, you get fined and it’s a whole big to-d0. However, when I remember every so often that other countries like the US don’t make voting a compulsory activity, I begin to consider if it’s something that SHOULD be mandatory, or if it was optional if that would make things better or worse… or the same.
Okay, so while this may not be a debate that EVERYONE on this planet has, it is something that people tend to have an opinion on. If it were up to me, voting WOULDN’T be compulsory in Australia. The amount of people that I have known personally, and know of, that don’t give a rats butt about who is in charge of the country – end up voting for whoever and it just ads to a pile of either ineligible vote, or for a person they thought had an interesting name…
On the other hand, when you have a place that doesn’t mandate a vote you have people who end up complaining about how the country is run, but who didn’t even have ANYTHING to do with how that person and party got into power. It sounds like a hollow complaint, because if you don’t like it you can change it… except you were too lazy to go to the voting place on election day. So, yeah.
I am not a particularly political person, so my view on this really just comes down to inconvenience. The fact that I have to do something, that just takes up my time… I do understand the people I kind of roasted above, to an extent. The older I get, the more I do actually care who is in charge of the country. The more I feel that I would like to have a say in who that is. But that doesn’t change the fact that some people will Never be interesting, and are content to just live their lives.
What does the flip side look like? If voting in Australia was optional, like it is in the US would that change anything? Well, probably not. The people who are giving a real vote, would still show up. The people who didn’t want to vote and ended up putting through something that couldn’t be counted anyway, wouldn’t have to fake their voting experience. The people who really cared about who was in charge would still be able to vote. I suppose it comes down to accomodating those few who really just don’t care at all about voting.
If places currently have optional voting were to change the rules, how would THAT look? Well, to be honest I think it would look a little like chaos. Wrangling loads of people who have never voted a day in their lives into the right place, to vote the correct way, and for no incentive other than not receiving a fine.. yeah I don’t see that going very well.
How do you feel about voting? I hear some argue the age should be lowered or raised, that it should be compulsory or optional, and that basically everyone agrees we all want some better candidates than we usually get…
See You in the Adventures (or the voting booths I suppose) Christy Grace
If you ask people this question, it can sometimes elicit some very serious reactions.
People on the side of Android will swear black and blue that the operating systems, hardware and tech in general are better on all fronts. Apple people will have pretty much all the products, have them all able to link together and point out the good features of theirs while pointing out that more people have apple chargers hanging around their homes rather than android… So, who’s right?
Well, when it comes to things like this it’s always going to be personal preference, but let’s look at some of the reasons why this is such a highly debated idea…
Android
My very first phone was android – though it wasn’t called that at the time. The debate over which was better was still in infancy as flip phones had become the major players (boy, I’m old). But as the iPhone 3 came out and we all decided if it was worth paying the money for an iPhone, that’s what I started with.
People who have android phones, LOVE android phones. I have heard people (and people very close to me, let me tell you!) who will absolutely to their dying breath claim that android is better. The main reasons I hear is the camera is much better quality, the operating system is better, more intuitive and easier to use, and that the phone’s themselves actually change and have more variety (opposed to Apple and their tendency to release an almost exactly the same phone every year).
While I can see the reasoning behind these claims, I have yet to really see that much of a difference in terms of how easy an operating system is to use. This is something that is always going to be a challenge to learn when you first switch between (even going from Apple to Android requires learning a new system). I could believe the camera part and even agree the range is definitely better for Android. But is that worth swapping everything you own so that your phone will no longer link with your other devices?
Apple
Apple was the first phone I ever got that was a plan, rather than Pre-Paid. It was a heck of a lot of money, and it was only when I got my first real, full time job that I could afford it. But man, I loved it at first setup. I have no shame admitting that I am an Apple person. I have computers, phones, tablets, watches and TV devices…. yeah, I’m one of those.
Some Android people have told me to come over to their side, trying to convince me it’s better over there, but I just don’t want to make the leap. Let me be clear, I’m not one of those people who has to have the newest model the day it comes out – actually I’m usually quite a few models behind (right now I am about 4 models behind the new release and very happy with the phone I have). But, I do like my Apple products.
Some of the main reasons people claim Apple is better, include the ability to link all your devices and having access to the same chargers for multiple products. Yes, you can do that in some form with Android, but Apple seems to do it really well. Apple is sleek, has a certain look about it that I just like. It is just as pricey as Android these days (sorry guys, but have you seen the prices on some of those Samsung and other Android models!?) and I am willing to forego as good of a camera, for the familiar operating system and sleek synchronicity. It also does actually have a great and easy to use operating system, hardware and overall look that I think is what you want from a phone!
Outcome
Until one or both of these go out of business (unlikely on both fronts really), I think we’ll be having this debate until the end of technology…. whatever side of the fence you’re on, I’m sure you have your own reasons that each is good (or bad!).
So, to keep the debate rolling, share in the comments which side you’re on – Apple or Android… Make your case!
A girl on fire, a mocking jay, and a world that is just bat crap crazy upside down bananas!
Hunger games was a corker when it came out, and even more so when the movies graced our screen in the YA movie era of fame and acclaim. So, when I went back to read the books for the first time in 2021, the craze was well and truly passed.
But, something that people have been debating since the book, and subsequently the movie, came out, is whether Katniss should have ended up with Peeta or Gale, and now that I’ve seen the movie AND read the book, I’m weighing in on this classic debate!
I haven’t looked into what ANYONE has said on this topic, I’m just going off my own observations, so here we go:
GALE
Pros – Katniss has known Gale for a long time, and in a personal way (not just from afar and once when he threw some food scraps her way). They’ve been hunting partners a while, know each other well and already have some sizzle from the start of where we pick up the books/movies. Gale would protect Katniss no matter what – he’d go down swinging and never hesitate. He’s a warrior who is all in.
Cons – Gale can be very one minded/focussed. He hates the world they live in, and is so desperate to change it, that he rushes into alliances which might actually not be positive, or provide good results. If he thinks something is the right way to go, he doesn’t support anyone else (ie Katniss), and thinks he’s got things sorted out. Gale loves Katniss, but in a way that seems to be conditional.
PEETA
Pros – Peeta and Katniss bond over the horrors of the games, and this is a strong bond. Peeta has cared for Katniss in some way or another for a long while (from afar), and showed compassion to her in a low moment by providing her with bread when she needed it (at personal risk mind you). He has a caring heart, and is compassionate while also being strong of heart. He can also throw some heavy stuff around, which would come in really handy around the house (ladies, am I right?!).
Cons – Peeta is a bit of a weenie. Let’s not shy away from it. He gets more courageous as the story moves forward, but he’s still a bit of a sooky la la. Bonds from trials and chaos don’t always last when it all dies down and normal life sets in. You can’t base a real relationship on something as fleeting as danger – especially when that won’t be a constant – something about Peeta and Katniss feels like this. When the wars are over, and things are “normal” and they do life like everyone else, they (particularly Katniss) will be bored with their lives, and eventually each other. Peeta is also a secret manipulator. In the first Hunger Games, we see him using their relationship to stay alive, and hide things from not only Katniss, but the viewers. It wouldn’t be too hard for him to translate this into a home situation when he really wanted something.
Okay, that’s my brief pros and cons of each guy, so what’s the verdict?
I think Katniss should have ended up with Peeta. I think Gale was a little too set on overthrowing the regime, and righting all the wrongs (either real, or imagined by him) at any cost. Peeta seemed to have Katniss in mind when he faces whatever it is that he’s got in front of him. His compassionate and kind nature gives him an edge for me, because that’s what allows a person (particularly a man) to be a good leader, and a good partner. It allows strength, because you have the ability, and aren’t afraid to show these important qualities.
So, do you agree with my decision? Share in the comments if you do, or don’t and why! I’d love to hear your thoughts.
“We were on a break!!” is probably one of the most infamous running gags that F.R.I.E.N.D.S ever did – so let’s decide if they were, or not…
Estimated Reading Time: 3min
If you’ve seen Friends, you don’t really need a rundown but here it is anyway:
Six friends who live in NYC navigate their twenties together. Love interests and drama (of course), careers, and of course coffee and Central Perk.
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, the debate of ‘we were on a break’ comes from the romance between Ross and Rachel.
They were dating, and when they started arguing about Ross’ jealousy and insecurity in their relationship regarding Mark (a work colleague of Rachel’s), and her new job taking a lot of her time…. they took a break?
>>>Get a copy of my ebook KIDNAPPED Entanglement >>>here
Okay, so technically Rachel yelled at Ross that ‘maybe’ they should take a break from “us”. Instead of staying and discussing what she meant about that and why she thought so, Ross just leaves without a word. Immaturity aside, it would have been a pretty hurtful thing to hear, so we’ll give him that.
Distraught at having thought he lost his girlfriend, Ross heads out to a bar and starts drinking with Joey and Chandler (a horrible idea really) and ends up sleeping with a girl from the copy place. When Rachel calls the next morning to apologise for her side of the fight, and confirm she doesn’t want to take a break (just a heat of the moment comment really), he panics and tries to keep the dalliance from her.
When she finds out though, his only defence was that he thought they had broken up. Unfortunately for Rachel though, it was enough of a betrayal that she couldn’t see their relationship the same way, and they break up (for the first time… these guys DEFINED on again-off again).
Okay, so all exposition aside, WERE THEY ON A BREAK?
As far as I’m concerned – No. They weren’t.
Ross didn’t even confirm what ‘MAYBE we should take a break from us’ meant. He just left the room and assumed the worst. He 1 million percent should have confirmed that was what she thought. There was absolutely no clarification of what that was.
Second, even if it was a break – it doesn’t mean jump into the sack with someone a few hours later. That’s just a stupid reaction which (obviously) won’t end well. If someone really does want to take a break, it should be a time for you both to reflect on the relationship and what you want out of it – NOT A HALL PASS.
Thirdly, neither of them officially agreed that they should ‘take a break’ – it was just a SUGGESTION. Rachel said ‘maybe’ which is clearly a potential that she is raising. When Ross didn’t continue with the conversation and ask any numerous questions like:
Do you WANT to take a break?
Why do you want to take a break?
Why do you think we should take a break?
What does ‘take a break’ mean for us?
Well, do you agree with me? Maybe not… share why below!
If you want to read my book, head to the link >>>here for the KIDNAPPED Entanglement eBook
You must be logged in to post a comment.